^■;. 


VI.  > 


HISTORICAL  AND  CRITICAL  NOTES. 

CRITICS    AND    APOLOGISTS.  ^      ^ 

In  the  Expo-'^itonj  Times  for  February,  1896,  p.  227,  an  eaitorial 
notice  of  Dr.  W.  H/ Green's  treatise  on  The  Higher  Critici.vn  of  the 
Pentateuch  began  in  these  words:  ''  '  There  is  now  but  one  Old  Testa- 
ment scholar  who  rejects  the  results  of  criticism.'  So  said  a  higher  critic 
recently;  and  he  named  the  scholar— Prof.  Green,  of  Princeton.  The 
statement  was  too  severe  on  some  other  men,  but  not  too  complimentary 
to  Prof.  Green.  For  he  is  a  scholar;  they  who  resent  his  attitude  most 
hotly  admit  it  most  readily." 

Exactly  three  years  have  elapsed  since  the  above  statement  ap^^eared. 
What  is  now  the  ' '  advanced  thought ' '  of  the  higher  critics  in  respect 
to  Prof.  Green,  as  reported  in  the  Expository  Times  for  February,  1899  ? 
They  have  discovered  in  the  interval  that  he  is  not  a  scholar.  Criti- 
cism that  is  up  to  date  is  now  able  to  treat  him  with  contempt.  Thus 
they  who  venture  still  to  believe  in  the  historic  truth  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  left  poor  indeed.  Their  only  scholar  has  been  discredited! 
We  should  be  sorry  to  think  that  the  accomphshed  editor  of  the  theologi  - 
cal  magazine  in  which  Dr.  Green  has  been  held  up  to  derision  has 
changed  the  opinion  which  he  formerly  expressed  regarding  the  learning 
of  that  honored  Christian  apologist.  Possibly  owing  to  the  pressure  of 
work  now  devolving  upon  him  the  obnoxious  paragraphs  escaped  his 
observation. 

The  Rev.  J.  A.  Selbie  has  charge  of  the  department  entitled,  "Among 
the  Periodicals,"  in  the  Expository  Times.  In  the  issue  referred  to  he 
reproduces  with  unmistakable  approbation  some  criticisms  which  Dr. 
Carl  Steueruagel  wrote  in  the  Theolor/ische  Bundschau  of  last  December 
in  condemnation  of  apologetic  treatises  recently  translated  into  German. 
Mr.  Selbie  will  be  naturally  considered  a  high  authority  on  Biblical  litera- 
ture from  his  editorial  position,  and  from  the  fact  that  he  is  the  chief 
assistant  of  Dr.  Hastings  in  the  preparation  of  the  new  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible  now  in  course  of  publication  by  ^Messrs.  Clark,  of  Edinburgh, 
Dr.  Steueruagel  is  privat-dozeut  of  Theology  in  Halle,  and  is  author  of 
a  Connnentary  on  Deuteronomy  which  api)eared  last  year  in  the  Nowack 
series  of  manuals.  Grave  and  damaging  accusations  made  by  such  men, 
it  seems  to  us,  ought  not  to  be  left  unnoticed,  especially  in  view  of  the 
tone  of  assurance  with  which  they  are  l)rought  forward,  which  is  fitted  to 
impose  on  the  inconsiderate  and  ignorant. 
35 


VI. 
HISTORICAL  AND  CKITICAL  NOTES. 

CRiTICS    AND    APOLOGISTS.  ^      i^ 

In  the  Expoi^itonj  Tunea  for  February,  1896,  p.  227,  an  eaitorial 
notice  of  Dr.  AV,  H.^ Green's  treatise  on  The  Higher  Critici.wi  of  the 
Pentateuch  began  in  these  words:  "  '  There  is  now  but  one  Old  Testa- 
ment scholar  who  rejects  the  results  of  criticism.'  So  said  a  higher  critic 
recently;  and  he  named  the  scholar— Prof.  Green,  of  Princeton.  The 
statement  was  too  severe  on  some  other  men,  but  not  too  complimentary 
to  Prof.  Green.  For  he  is  a  scholar;  they  who  resent  his  attitude  most 
hotly  admit  it  most  readily." 

Exactly  three  years  have  elapsed  since  the  above  statement  appeared. 
What  is  now  the  ' '  advanced  thought ' '  of  the  higher  critics  in  respect 
to  Prof.  Green,  as  reported  in  the  Expository  Times  for  February,  1899  ? 
They  have  discovered  in  the  interval  that  he  is  not  a  scholar,  ('riti- 
cism  that  is  up  to  date  is  now  able  to  treat  him  with  contempt.  Thus 
they  who  venture  still  to  believe  in  the  historic  truth  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  left  poor  indeed.  Their  only  scholar  has  been  discredited! 
We  should  be  sorry  to  think  that  the  accompUshed  editor  of  the  theologi- 
cal magazine  in  which  Dr.  Green  has  been  held  up  to  derision  has 
changed  the  opinion  which  he  formerly  expressed  regarding  the  learning 
of  that  honored  Christian  apologist.  Possibly  owing  to  the  j^ressure  of 
work  now  devolving  upon  him  the  ol3noxious  paragraphs  escaped  his 
observation. 

The  Rev.  J.  A.  Selbie  has  charge  of  the  department  entitled,  ''Among 
the  Periodicals,"  in  the  Expository  Times.  In  the  issue  referred  to  he 
reproduces  with  unmistakal)le  approbation  some  criticisms  which  Dr. 
Carl  Steuernagel  wrote  in  the  Theologische  Bundsch((u  of  last  December 
in  condemnation  of  apologetic  treatises  recently  translated  into  German. 
Mr.  Selbie  will  l)e  naturally  considered  a  high  authority  on  Biblical  litera- 
ture from  his  editorial  position,  and  from  the  fact  that  he  is  the  chief 
assistant  of  Dr.  Hastings  in  the  preparation  of  the  new  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible  now  in  course  of  pul)lication  by  ^Messrs.  Clark,  of  Edinburgh, 
Dr.  Steuernagel  is  privat-dozeut  of  Theology  in  Halle,  and  is  author  of 
a  Connuentary  on  Deuteronomy  which  appeared  last  year  in  the  Nowack 
series  of  manuals.  Grave  and  <lamaging  accusations  made  by  such  men, 
it  seems  to  us,  ought  not  to  be  left  unnoticed,  especially  in  view  of  the 
tone  of  assurance  with  which  they  are  brought  forward,  which  is  fitted  to 
impose  on  the  inconsiderate  and  ignorant. 
35 


i^- 


53 J:  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Against  Dr.  Green  in  particular,  and  recent  apologists  in  general,  Jjr. 
Steuernagel,  as  reported  in  the  Expository  Timef<,  brings  these  three  seri- 
ous charges:  "  That  their  work  is  frequently  of  a  very  superficial  char- 
acter, that  they  set  up  a  man  of  straw  for  their  attacks,  and  that  even 
their  Biblical  knowledge  often  leaves  much  to  be  desired."  From  read- 
ing Dr.  Steuernagel' s  original  article  we  can  testify  that  he  is  not  misrep- 
resented. We  nnist'now  confine  our  attention  to  an  examination  of  the 
truth  of  these  charges  as  preferred  against  Dr.  Green,  who  is  the  chief 
mark  of  our  critics.  The  second  of  these  charges  we  take  up  first,  as  it 
is  evidently  considered  the  most  crushing,  and  its  statement  in  the  Eng- 
lish translation  is  followed  by  a  note  of  exclamation:  '*  Green  sets  up  a 
man  of  straw  to  represent  the  position  of  critics  when  he  alleges  that  the 
latter,  whenever  the  name  Jahivch  occurs  in  an  '  Elohistic  '  passage, 
assume  that  a  redactor  has  either  introduced  a  sentence  from  a  parallel 
narrative  or  altered  the  original  Elohim  into  Jahweh.  Green  actually 
makes  this  allegation  in  connection  with  passages  subsequent  to  Ex.  iii, 
although  every  critic  knows  that  E  tells  us  in  Ex.  iii.  18fF.  of  the  revela- 
tion of  the  new  divine  name  Jahiceh  to  Moses,  and  tliat  from  this  point 
onwards  the  latter  name  even  preponderates  in  E !" 

It  is  in  review  of  Dr.  Green's  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  that 
this  accusation  is  made.  The  offense  charged,  if  proved  to  have  been 
actually  committed,  must  be  pronounced  utterly  inexcusable,  and  would 
of  itself  be  sufficient  to  destroy  Dr.  Green's  reputation  as  a  scholar. 
But  what  must  be  said  of  his  accusers  if  they  have  borne  false  witness 
against  him  ?     His  is  not  the  only  reputation  at  stake. 

Has  Dr.  Green  "  set  up  a  man  of  straw  [a  Zerrbild  as  the  original 
has  it]  to  represent  the  position  of  critics  ?' '  We  will  let  the  most  distin- 
guished of  the  higher  critics  represent,  in  their  own  words,  their  position 
in  regard  to  the  mooted  point.  They  should  know  what  they  have  been 
in  the  habit  of  teaching.  Dr.  August  Dillmann,  professor  of  Theology 
in  Berlin,  who  died  in  1894,  gives  the  testimony  of  an  expert  in  his  treatise 
Ueher  die  Composition  des  Hexateuch,  ai)pended  to  the  second  edition  of 
his  Commentary  on  Numbers,  Deuteronomy  and  Joshua.  On  p.  617, 
in  treating  of  the  Elohistic  document,  whose  existence  he  and  the  other 
divisive  critics  postulate,  Dillmann  thus  writes  :  "  Das  wichtigste  Kenn- 
zeichcn  dieser  Schrift  ist  die  Benennung  Gottes  mit  Elohim  ( auch  nach 
der  Einsetzung  des  Jahvenamens  Ex.  iii),  welche  E  mit  andern  alteu 
Geschichtsschreibern  (in  Jud.  u.  Sam.,  vgl.  Knobel,  561)  gemeinsam 
hat;  sie  ist  bei  ilim  durchgiingig,  u.  HliT  ^^  seinen  Stiicken  erst  durch 
die  spiiteren  Bearbeiter  hereingebracht. " 

In  this  quotation  Dillmann  distinctly  asserts  that  tlie  most  important 
criterion  of  the  E  document  is  its  naming  of  the  Deity  by  Elohim,  -and 
that  God  is  so  named  in  it  both  before  and  after  Ex.  iii;  that  this  use  of 
Elohim  in  E  is  thorour/hgoing,  or  universal  ;  and  that  when  the  name 
Jehovali  is  found  in  passages  belonging  to  E,  its  introduction  is  to  be 
ascribed  to  later   hands.      If  Dillmann   was  competent  to  give  a  correct 


CRITICS  AND  APOLOGISTS.  od.» 

account  of  his  own  doctrine,  Dr.  Green  must  be  acquitted  of  the  charge 
of  setting  up  a  man  of  straw,  ein  Zerrbild,  to  represent  the  position  of 
the  higher  critics. 

Prof.  Juhus  Wellhausen  is  another  witness  who  may  be  allowed  to 
give  testimony  on  this  question.  In  his  treatise,  Die  Composition  des 
HexateucJis  and  der  hi  sto  rise  hoi  Bueher  des  alien  Tedaments,  p.  72,  speak- 
ing of  Ex.  iii.  10-15,  which  he  claims  for  the  Elohistic  document,  he 
remarks:  "■  AVirklich  erscheint  hier  iiberall  im  Munde  des  Erztihlers 
D*n'?N  V.  11,  1-!,  13,  14,  15,  wiihrend  von  nun  ab  dies  Kriterium  fiir 
Uingere  Zeit  aufhort,  freilich  wie  es  scheint,  mehr  (lurch  Schuld  des 
Bearbeiters,  als  nach  der  Absicht  des  Elohisten  selber,  der  nach  wie  vor 
fiir  gewohnlich  den  allgemeinen  Namen  gebraucht  zu  haben  scheint." 

In  this  quotation  Wellhausen  clearly  makes  the  use  of  the  name 
Elohim  a  criterion  of  the  E  document,  and  ascribes  the  omission  of  this 
name  in  Elohistic  passages  after  Ex.  iii  to  the  fault  of  the  redactor, 
and  not  to  the  original  author,  whom  Wellhausen  holds  to  have,  both 
before  and  after  Ex.  iii,'  commonly  employed  the  general  name  of  God 
or  Elohim.  To  produce  further  e\'idence  at  our  command  on  this  head 
would  be  a  work  of  supererogation. 

Pr.  Green  does  not  pretend  to  be  infallible,  but  reviewers  should  be 
very  careful  of  rashly  accusing  him  of  disgraceful  blundering,  lest  haply 
they  fling  a  boomerang  which  may  recoil  to  their  own  hurt.  Dr.  Green 
knows  as  well  as  any  living  man  the  tricks  of  the  redactor  whom  the 
critics  are  obliged  to  assume  for  the  purpose  of  upholding  the  modern 
documentary  hypothesis  of  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch.  He  could 
truly  say  of  him  what  Paul  says  of  Satan:  ''  We  are  not  ignorant  of 
his  devices."  He  is  not  likely  to  be  caught  napping  while  describing  his 
varied  and  whimsical  operations.  He  has  studied  the  work  assigned  to 
K  thoroughly,  and  has  given  the  best  description  of  it  that  we  have  any- 
where seen.  It  seems  very  superstitious  on  the  part  of  the  critics  to^ 
])rofess  to  believe  in  such  a  being  in  this  enlightened  age.  But  they  feel 
that  they  cannot  get  along  without  him,  and  so  to  them  R  is  a  name  to 
conjure  with.  Here  is  Dr.  Green's  account  of  that  strange  character 
whose  symbol  is  R:  ''  The  most  capricious  and  inconsistent  conduct  is 
attributed  to  R,  such  as  is  an  impeachment  of  both  his  honesty  and  good 
sense.  He  is  held  responsible,  in  fact,  for  everything  that  is  at  variance 
with  the  requirements  of  the  hypothesis.  And  on  the  supposition  that 
such  a  person  really  existed  and  did  the  work  ascribed  to  him,  it  is  quite- 
impossible  to  form  any  intelligent  notion  of  his  methods  or  liis  aims.. 
We  are  told  that  in  some  places  he  carefully  preserves  minute  fragments 
of  his  sources,  though  they  are  a  superfluous  ropctitif>n  of  what  has 
already  been  more  fully  stated  in  the  language  of  otlier  documents;  and 
yet  elsewhere  he  freely  omits  large  and  essential  portions  of  tlieni.  In 
some  places  he  preserves  unchanged  wliat  is  represented  to  be  plainly 
antagonistic,  while  in  other  places  he  is  careful  to  smooth  away  discre])- 
ancies  and  to  give  a  difterent  turn  to  variant  passages  by  transpositions  or 


536  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

by  iiisertious  of  his  own.  He  sometimes  keeps  his  documents  quite 
distiuct  in  language  and  form,  at  other  times  lie  effaces  their  peculiarities 
or  blends  them  inextricably  together.  All  these  offices  nmst  be  assumed 
in  order  to  carry  the  hypothesis  safely  through;  but  whether  such  a 
bundle  of  contradictions  was  ever  incarnate  in  any  actually  existing 
person,  the  only  proof  of  his  existence  being  that  these  contradictory 
things  are  alleged  about  him,  everyone  must  judge  for  himself"  {He- 
hrtiica,  Vol.  vii,  p.  35f. ).  This  is  no  caricature  of  K.  Those  familiar 
with  Pentateuchal  criticism  will  without  difficulty  recognize  the  accuracy 
of  the  portraiture  in  every  feature. 

In  tlie  quotation  made  from  the  Expository  Times  it  is  affirmed  that 
"  every  critic  knows  that  E  tells  us  in  Ex.  iii.  13ff'.  of  the  revelation  of 
the  new  divine  name  Jahweh  to  Moses  "  This  is  what  no  critic  hioivs. 
But  the  destructive  critics  profess  to  know  it.     Herein  they  greatly  err. 

To  obviate  misapprehension  it  is  proper  to  observe  that  Dr.  Green  does 
not  assert  that  the  critics  always  assume  that  the  presence  of  the  name 
Elohini  in  what  they  call  a  J  section  is  owing  to  the  interference  of  R. 
On  the  contrary,  he  says  expressly  in  his  Higher  Criticism,  j).  91,  that 
"  Elohim  is  repeatedly  found  along  with  Jehovah  in  passages  attributed 
to  J  where  the  critics  explain  that  the  author  of  this  document  used 
both  names  as  the  occasion  demanded."  He  appropriately  asks,  "  If  J 
could  use  both  of  these  names,  and  in  so  doing  was  governed  by  their 
inherent  signification  and  by  the  appropriateness  of  each  to  the  connec- 
tion in  which  they  are  severally  employed,  why  might  not  P  and  E  do 
the  same  ?  Or  why,  in  fact,  is  there  any  need  for  J,  P  or  E,  or  for 
any  other  than  the  one  author  to  whom  a  uniform  tradition  attributes  all 
that  it  has  been  proposed  to  jiarcel  among  these  unknown  and  undiscov- 
erable  personages  ?" 

We  now  turn  to  the  first  of  the  charges  made  by  Steuernagel.  It  is 
thus  stated:  "  It  is  surely  a  very  suj^erficial  explanation  of  the  inter- 
chauge  of  the  divrine  names  to  say  with  Green  that  Jahweh  is  employed 
when  God  is  thought  of  as  the  God  of  salvation  and  of  gracious  conde- 
scension, whereas  the  name  Elohim  is  chosen  when  he  appears  as  the 
Creator  or  Judge  of  the  world.  Why,  then,"  asks  Steuernagel,  "is  the 
God  who  enters  into  covenant  with  Noah  (Gen.  ix)  and  with  Abraham 
(Gen.  xvii)  called  Elohim  f  Why  is  the  God  who  executes  judgment 
on  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  called  Jahweh  f  Why  is  it  that  in  perfectly 
parallel  narratives  we  find  at  one  time  Jahweh  and  at  another  time 
Klnhim  ?  (compare  Gen.  xii.  10-20  with  xx.  1-17)." 

We  agree  with  Steuernagel  that  if  Dr.  Green  had  given  such  an  inade- 
quate account  of  the  divine  names  as  he  attributes  to  him,  it  would 
furnish  a  very  superficial  and  unsatisfactory  explanation  of  their  inter- 
change. 15ut  what  if  Steuernagel  is  here  guilty  of  the  ofiense  which  he 
charges  on  Dr.  Green,  which  we  have  already  weighed  and  found  want- 
ing ?  What  if  he  sets  u})  a  man  of  straw  instead  of  the  real  Dr.  Green  ? 
This  is  what  he  lias  done.     He   does  not  fairly  represent   the  position  of 


CRITICS  AND  APOLOGISTS.  537 

the  man  whom  lie  autagonizes.  Dr.  Green,  in  his  discussion  so  coura- 
geously and  triumphantly  carried  on  in  Hebraica  with  Prof.  W.  R. 
Harper,  could  not  have  proceeded  far  in  the  attempt  to  show  the  appro- 
priate and  discriminating  use  in  Genesis  of  Jehovah  and  EloJiiin  respec- 
tively without  seeing  the  futility  of  his  contention  if  he  had  only  followed 
the  simple  rule  attributed  to  him  as  sufficient  for  explaining  everywhere 
the  preferential  employment  of  one  or  other  of  the  two  divine  names  Jeho- 
vah and  Elohim.  We  have  not  been  able  to  discover  that  Dr.  Green  has 
stated  in  any  of  his  writings  that  Jehovah  cannot  be  properly  used  when 
God  is  thought  of  as  Judge  of  the  world.  He  knew  that  Jehovah- 
Elohim  pronounced  sentence  on  the  old  serpent  and  on  our  first  parents, 
and  that  Jehovah  judged  Cain;  and  he  often  refers  to  acts  of  judgment 
on  the  world  performed  by  Jehovah.  In  the  book  which  Dr.  Steuernagel 
reviews,  Dr.  Green  carefully  distinguishes  the  two  divine  names  as 
follows  :* 

*'  Elohim  is  the  general  name  for  God,  and  is  applied  both  to  the  true 
God  and  to  pagan  deities.  Jehovah  is  not  a  common  but  a  proper  noun. 
It  belongs  to  the  true  God  alone,  and  is  His  characteristic  name,  by 
which  He  is  distinguished  from  all  others,  and  by  which  He  made  Him 
self  known  to  Israel,  His  chosen  people.  Accordingly  Jehovah  denotes 
specifically  what  God  is  in  and  to  Israel;  Elohim  what  He  is  to  other 
nations  as  weU.  That  universal  agency  which  is  exercised  in  the  world 
at  large,  and  which  is  directed  upon  Israel  and  Gentiles  alike,  is  by 
Elohim,  the  God  of  creation  and  providence.  That  special  manifestation 
of  Himself  which  is  made  to  His  own  people  is  by  Jehovah,  the  God  of 
revelation  and  of  redemption.  The  sacred  writer  uses  one  name  or  the 
other,  according  as  he  contemplates  God  under  one  or  the  other  point  of 
view.  Where  others  than  those  of  the  chosen  race  are  the  speakers,  as 
Abimelech  (Gen.  xxi.  22,  23)  or  Pharaoh  (xh.  38,  39),  it  is  natural 
that  they  should  say  Elohim,  unless  they  specifically  refer  to  the  God  of 
the  patriarchs  (xxvi.  28)  or  of  Israel  (Ex.  v.  2),  when  they  will  say 
Jehovah.  In  transactions  between  Abraham  or  his  descendants  and 
those  of  another  race  God  may  be  spoken  of  under  aspects  common  to 
them  both,  and  the  name  Elohim  be  employed;  or  he  may  be  regarded 
under  aspects  specifically  Israehtish,  and  the  name  Jehovah  be  used. 
Again,  as  Elohim  is  the  generic  name  for  God   as  distinguished   from 

*  In  the  Homiletic  Review  (published  by  Funk  &  Wagnalls  Company,  London 
and  New  York)  for  August,  189^,  pp.  in6ff.,  ami  for  September,  pp.  257fY.,  Dr. 
Green  has  two  valuable  papers  on  "  Elohim  and  Jehovah  in  the  Pentateuch."  He 
first  examines  the  use  of  these  divine  names  in  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  then  considers  their  use  in  the  books  of  Moses.  These  papers  are  the  latest 
and,  we  think,  the  most  careful  and  complete  connected  discussion  of  the  subject 
that  has  proceeded  from  Dr.  Green's  pen.  They  deserve  the  study  of  those  who 
would  master  this  important  question.  At  the  close  of  his  investigation  he  makes 
the  claim,  which  is  not  too  strong :  The  divine  names  occurring  in  the  Pentateuch 
have  now  been  considered  in  detail,  and  I  think  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  it  has 
been  shown  that  their  employment  is  regulated  by  the  same  principles  which 
prevail  in  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament." 


538  THE  PRE  SB  YTERIAN  AND  JIEFORMED  RE  VIE  W. 

beings  of  a  diffeieiit  grade,  it  is  the  teirn  proper  to  be  used  "vvhen  God 
and  man,  the  divine  and  the  human,  are  contrasted,  as  ^Geu.  xxx.  2 ; 
xxxii.  28;  xlv.  5,  7,  8 ;  1.    19,  20"    (Higher  Criticism,  pp.   102,  103). 

Dr.  Green  further  observes  that  "  wliile  in  certain  cases  one  of  the 
divine  names  is  manifestly  appropriate  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other, 
there  are  others  in  which  either  name  might  properly  be  used,  and  it  is  at 
the  discretion  of  the  writer  Avhich  he  will  employ.  When  an  event  is 
capable  of  being  viewed  under  a  double  aspect,  either  as  belonging  to  the 
general  scheme  of  God's  universal  providence,  or  as  embraced  within 
the  administration  of  His  plan  of  grace,  either  Elohim  or  Jehovah  would 
be  in  place,  and  it  depends  on  the  writer's  conception  at  the  time  which 
he  will  employ.  It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  in  Genesis,  any  more 
than  in  other  books  of  the  Bible,  to  be  able  to  show  that  there  was  a 
necessity  for  using  that  divine  name  which  is  actually  employed.  It  is 
sufficient  to  show,  as  can  invariably  be  done,  that  the  writer  might 
properly  use  the  name  which  he  has  actually  chosen  "  (Higher  Criticism, 
p.  106). 

It  is  not  difficult  now  to  answer  the  question  of  Steuernagel:  "  Why 
is  the  God  who  enters  into  covenant  with  Noah  (Gen.  ix)  and  with 
Abraham  (Gen.  xvii)  called  Elohim  ?"  The  covenant  described  in 
Gen.  ix  was  made,  not  with  the  chosen  seed,  but  with  Noah  and  his 
seed,  and  all  living  creatures,  with  all  flesh  upon  the  earth  (Gen.  ix.  9, 
10,  15,  17).  Its  universal  character  is  made  very  prominent.  There- 
fore, the  general  name  of  God,  Elohim,  is  most  ap2")ro])riate.  When 
God  is  set  forth  as  distinguishing  the  chosen  seed  from  the  rest  of  man- 
kind, then  Jehovah  is  more  fittingly  used.  See  ver.  26  of  the  same 
chapter,  where  we  read,  ''  Blessed  be  Jehovah,  God  of  Shem."  It  is 
surely  not  by  accident  that  in  the  next  verse  the  blessing  of  Japheth  is 
attributed  to  Elohim. 

But  why  is  it  Elohim  who  enters  into  covenant  with  Abraham  (Gen. 
xvii)  ?  We  answer  that  the  first  verse  of  Gen,  xvii  tells  us  that  it  was 
Jehovah  who  did  this;  and  we  refuse  to  listen  to  the  critics  Avho  say  in 
the  interest  of  their  theory  that  this  verse  is  an  interpolation  by  R,  or 
that  R  has  at  least  substituted  Jehovah  for  Elohim.  It  is  Jehovah, 
then,  who  enters  here  into  covenant  with  Abraham,  or  rather,  renews 
and  enlarges  the  covenant  mentioned  in  Gen.  xv.  18.  But  why  is 
Elohim  used  throughout  the  remainder  of  the  chapter  ?  Because  there  is 
a  j)eculiar  significance  in  speaking  here  of  God  in  His  character  as  the 
Omnipotent  Creator.  P^l  Shaddai,  God  Almighty,  is  what  Jehovah 
calls  Himself  in  the  first  verse.  There  was  special  cause  to  dwell  on 
God's  power.  The  chapter  begins  with  mentioning  the  great  age  of 
Abraham.  The  patriarch  himself  is  introduced  as  asking,  '*  Shall  a  child 
l)e  born  unto  him  that  is  an  hundred  years  old  ?  And  shall  Sarah,  that 
is  ninety  years  old,  bear  ?"  (ver.  17).  He  was  even  led  to  suggest  that 
the  numerous  posterity  promised  to  him  might  be  granted  in  the  line  of 
Ishmael.     A  son  by  his  wife  did  not  seem  Avithin  the  bounds  of  jDossi- 


CRITICS  AND  APOL  0  GISTS.  589 

bility.  But  lie  is  told  defiuitely  that  Sarah  should  bear  him  a  sou  iu  the 
uext  year,  and  that  she  should  be  a  mother  of  nations.  If,  to 
strengthen  Abraham's  faith,  Jeiiovah  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter 
thought  it  proper  to  call  Himself  El  Shaddai,  thus  emphasizing  His 
divine  power,  it  is  in  admirable  keeping  for  the  sacred  narrator  to  use 
subsequently  throughout  the  theophany  the  familiar  name  of  Elohim, 
which  is  a  nearer  equivalent  of  El  Shaddai  than  Jehovah  is,  and  is  more 
suggestive  that  power  belongeth  unto  God  than  this  latter  name. 

It  is  further  asked,  '*  Why  is  the  God  who  executes  judgment  on 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  called  JahwehJ"  The  God  of  Abraham, 
Jehovah,  was  conspicuously  revealed  in  the  destruction  of  Sodom.  We 
may  answer  the  question  in  Dr.  Green's  own  words:  ''  It  is  Jehovah  iu 
chap,  xviii  who  in  condescending  grace  concludes  the  covenant  transac- 
tion with  Abraham  by  becoming  his  guest,  and  in  the  familiarity  of 
friendship)  admits  him  to  His  counsel  respecting  Sodom,  and  accepts  his 
intercession  on  its  behalf;  and  who  still  further  (xix.  1-28)  executes 
the  purpose  which  He  had  disclosed  to  Abraham,  ot  purging  his  own  land 
of  gross  offenders  (cf.  xiii.  13,  xv.  16,  xviii.  20,  21)"  (Unity  of 
Genesis,  p.  152).  What  he  says  in  the  same  place  on  the  use  of  Elohim 
in  xix.  29  answers  well  a  difficulty  raised  by  critics. 

We  have  another  question  to  answer:  '' Why  is  it  that  in  perfectly 
parallel  narratives  we  find  at  one  time  Jahweh  and  at  another  time 
Elohim  (compare  Gen.  xii.  10-20  with  xx.  1-17)  ?" 

There  is  a  remarkable  resemblance  between  the  two  narratives.  We 
add  that  there  is  a  likeness  between  them  which  our  divisive  critics  would 
obliterate.  In  the  earlier  the  name  Jehovah  alone  is  used,  and  it  occurs 
but  once;  it  is  the  only  name  of  God  occurring  in  Gen.  xii.  10-20. 
''  Jehovah  plagued  Pharaoh  and  his  house  with  great  plagues  because  of 
Sarai  Abram's  wife"  (ver.  17).  In  the  similar  narrative  in  Gen.  xx, 
the  name  Jehovah  occurs  once,  and  that  too  in  describing  the  judgment 
inflicted  by  the  Lord  on  Abimelech,  for  a  like  offense:  "  For  Jehovah 
had  fast  closed  up  all  the  wombs  of  the  house  of  iVbimelech,  because  of 
Sarah,  Abraham's  wife  "  (xx.  18).  The  correspondence  is  striking. 
But  the  a  jjriorism  of  such  critics  as  Kueuen,  Wellhausen  and  Dillmann 
will  not  tolerate  in  an  Elohistic  chapter  this  verse  in  which  tlie  name 
Jehovah  is  found,  and  they  accordingly  ascribe  it  to  the  interference  of 
R.  But  it  coheres  closely  with  the  preceding  sentence,  which  is,  iu 
fact,  unintelligible  without  it. 

We  might  be  content  with  this  answer  to  the  last  question.  But  we 
may  draw  from  Hengstenberg  a  moat  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  use 
of  Elohim  throughout  the  rest  of  Gen,  xx,  which  relates  graphically 
the  aftair  l^etween  Abraham  and  Abimelech  on  account  of  Sarah.  For 
Abimelech  God  is  Elohim;  of  Jehovah  he  knew  nothing.  Only  as 
Elohim  could  God  appear  to  him.  Al)rahani  uses  in  conversation  with 
Abimelech  Elohim,  while  he  accommodates  himself  to  his  standpoint. 
Therefore  he  prays  also  to  Elohim;  for  his  intercession  is  uttered  in  the 


04U  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

ears  of  the  king.  How  the  use  of  Elohim  is  called  forth  by  the  contents 
of  the  chapter  appears  very  clearly  from  ver.  11,  where  Abraham  says, 
''  Because  I  thought,  Surely  the  fear  of  Elohim  is  not  in  this  place.''  \ 
Abraham  confesses  that  he  was  herein  deceived  There  Avas  in  Gerar 
the  fear  of  Elohim.  But  the  fear  of  Jehovah  did  not  exist  there. 
Under  no  circumstances  could  Jehovah  be  used  in  ver.  11  (^Authentie 
des  Pentateuches,  i,  pp.  351,  852). 

Dr.  Green  is  censured  further  for  maintaining  that  "  Scripture  is  an 
organism  whose  parts  are  inspired  by  God  and  consequently  combine  in 
a  harmonious  whole."  This  is  the  view  which  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
and  His  apostles  held  of  Holy  Scripture.  It  is  the  view  to  which 
those  who  call  Christ  Master  are  committed,  and  it  can  be  vindi- 
cated against  all  impugners.  But  it  is  a  great  error  to  charge  Dr. 
Green  with  "  refusing  to  view  the  harmony  of  Scripture  as  the  re- 
sult of  a  process  of  development  under  divine  guidance."  We  find 
him,  in  the  Preface  to  his  book  which  is  reviewed,  saying  that  the 
Pentateuch  "  contains  the  germs  from  which  all  that  follows  was  de- 
veloped." And  one  of  his  arguments  to  prove  that  jMoses  was  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch  "  is  furnished  by  the  elementary  char- 
acter of  the  teachings  of  the  Pentateuch  as  compared  Avith  later  Scrip- 
lures  in  which  the  same  truths  are  more  fully  expanded.  The  develop- 
ment of  doctrine  in  respect  to  the  future  state,  providential  retribution, 
the  spiritual  character  of  true  worship,  angels  and  the  Messiah,  shows 
very  plainly  that  the  Pentateuch  belongs  to  an  earlier  period  than  the 
book  of  Job,  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets  "  (p.  45). 

As  illustrative  of  the  a  priori  reasoning  of  our  critics  we  may  instance 
the  following  statement:  ''  Green  denies,  of  course,  that  the  critics 
believe  in  divine  revelation  at  all."  Such  a  denial.  Dr.  Green  would 
make  in  regard  to  such  critics  as  Kuenen,  Reuss  and  AVellhausen. 
They  were  avowed  antisupernatiiralists.  But  Dr.  Green  never  denied  of 
such  critics  as  Delitzsch,  Konig,  Strack,  or  even  of  Dr.  C.  A.  Briggs, 
that  they  believed  in  divine  revelation  at  all.  In  The  Presbyterian 
AND  Reformed  Review^  for  October,  1893,  p.  553,  he  could  thus 
write:  "  Beyond  question  Dr.  Briggs  is  honestly  aiming  to  defend  the 
revealed  Word  of  God  and  evangelical  religion  against  the  hostile  attacks 
of  a  destructive  and  revolutionary  criticism.  Convinced  that  the  critics 
have  established  much  that  is  at  variance  with  what  has  been  currently 
believed  hitherto  respecting  the  origin  and  structure  of  the  books  of  the 
Bible,  he  is  persuaded  that  the  only  honest  and  safe  course  is  frankly  to 
accept  these  conclusions,  and  adjust  the  belief  of  the  Church  accord- 
ingly. He  confidently  maintains  tliat  nothing  which  is  essential  to  the 
Christian  faith  will  be  lost  by  so  doing,  while,  if  this  is  not  done,  the 
Bible  will  be  put  in  apparent  opposition  to  the  sure  results  of  modern 
scholarship,  to  the  serious  disadvantage  of  the  Christian  faith,  a  disad- 
vantage to  which  it  cannot  be  rightfully  subjected.  This  is  an  intelligi- 
ble position."      But  Dr.  Green   proceeds   to   show   that   this   position   is 


CRITICS  AND  APOLOGISTS.  oil 

untenable,  and  tliat  **  the  divorce  which  the  professor  proposes  to  efiect  is 
impracticable.  The  books  of  the  Bible  are  the  charter  of  the  Christian 
faith.     If  the  former  are  unsound,  the  latter  cannot  be  maintained." 

The  development  hypothesis  to  which  Dr.  Green  is  unalterably  opposed 
is,  ''  That  the  Pentateuchal  codes  are  not,  as  represented  in  the  Pentateuch 
itself  and  elsewhere  in  Scripture,  component  and  mutually  related  parts 
of  one  complete  system  of  legislation,  but  constitute  so  many  distinct  and 
successive  systems  of  legislation,  the  next  in  order  being  in  each  case 
further  developed  than  that  which  preceded  it;  and  that  the  differences 
between  the  codes  are  such  that  they  cannot  all  have  belonged  to  any 
one  period,  least  of  all  to  the  Mosaic,  as  represented  in  the  Scripture 
account,  but  long  periods  of  time  must  have  elapsed  to  give  occasion  for 
their  introduction. ' '  This  hypothesis,  which  makes  the  whole  record  of 
the  Bible  on  this  subject  a  colossal  forgery,  he  cannot  accept,  and  he  has 
given  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  not  accepting  it.  These  reasons 
deserve  serious  and  candid  consideration. 

Dr.  Steuernagel  is  not  well  informed  of  Dr.  Green's  position,  neither 
is  he,  as  we  have  proved,  as  conversant  as  he  might  be  expected  to  be 
w^th  the  views  of  the  critical  school  to  Avliich  he  professes  to  belong.  We 
have  looked  into  his  Commentary  on  Deuteronomy.  He  impresses  us  as 
a  man  very  desirous  of  saying  something  novel  and  startling.  He  assails 
the  unity  of  Deuteronomy.  He  thinks  that  he  has  discovered  in  the 
book  tw^o  authors  who  are  distinguished  by  him  from  one  another  by 
respectively  applying  "thou"  and  "you"  to  the  people  of  Israel. 
These  different  authors  he  proposes  to  indicate  by  Sg  =  singular  and 
PI  =  plural.  From  the  varying  use,  too,  of  the  second  and  third  per- 
sons he  would  infer  a  difference  of  source.  Prof.  E.  Konig,  of  Rostock, 
has  had  the  patience  in  three  papers  published  in  the  E.vpositori/  Times 
to  examine  minutely  the  arguments  of  this  nature  which  Dr.  Steuernagel 
has  adduced  in  support  of  his  divisive  hypothesis.  We  venture  to  think 
that  few  intelligent  persons  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  these 
papers  will  fail  to  be  convinced  that  Dr.  Konig  has  successfully  met  this 
attempt  to  divide  Deuteronomy  among  Deuteronomistic  documents  Sg 
and  PI,  in  addition  to  J,  E,  P  and  Redactors.  Sure  we  are  that  the 
new  criteria  could  be  easily  applied  to  impugn  the  unity  of  other  books 
of  the  Bible  and  of  extracauonical  writings,  and  even  of  unquestionable 
productions  of  nineteenth -century  author^ 

We  may  be  permitted  to  subjoin  a  single  specimen  of  the  liberty  Dr. 
Steuernagel  allows  himself  in  Scriptural  exegesis.  He  has  these  brief 
notes  on  Deut.  xviii.  lo:  "  The  Lord  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a 
prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like  unto  me;  unto  him 
ye  shall  hearken."  Like  unto  me.  "  ^lOD  i«  remarkable,  as  Moses 
elsewhere  in  the  Law  does  not  speak  thus  of  his  own  person,  and  it  may 
therefore  well  be  regarded  as  a  sign  that  this  passage  has  proceeded  from 
a  Redactor."  'i)}^?2C*n  V^N  Unto  him  ye  shall  hearken.  "  An  addi- 
tion on  account  of  the  plural  number,  especially  as  without  it  the  connec- 


542  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

tioii  of  ver.  16  is  improved."  Such  arbitrary  criticism  aims  at  the 
destructiou  of  the  Christian  argument  from  Messianic  prophecy  in  the 
Old  Testament.  It  may  be  called  critical  exegesis,  but  it  is  really  no 
better  than  the  working  of  reckless  caprice.  It  seems  to  Steueruagel  a 
small  matter  to  erase  from  the  Bible  the  brief  words,  ' '  Like  unto  me, ' ' 
"  Unto  him  ye  shall  hearken,"  to  say  of  them  lightly  that  they  are 
additions  by  an  unknown  reviser  to  a  document  which  Moses  never 
wrote,  but  which  originated  long  centuries  after  his  death.  But  precious 
in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  is  that  Word  which  he  has  once  spoken,  though 
it  may  be  rejected  by  professed  interpreters  of  the  Bible.  This  Word 
of  the  Lord  "  is  settled  in  heaven"  (Ps.  cxix.  89).  And  it  is  not 
forgotten  by  Him.  Was  not  this  apparent  when  the  disciples  who  were 
Avith  Jesus  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  with  Moses  and  Elijah  heard 
a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  "Hear  him?"  Even  unbelieving  com- 
mentators cannot  avoid  admitting  that  this  voice  from  heaven  "  Him 
hear  !  "  (the  "  Him  "  has  the  emphasis)  points  significantly  back  to  the 
command  in  Dent,  xviii.  15,  "Unto  him  ye  shall  hearken."  Christ, 
too,  had  assuredly  in  His  mind  the  words,  "  a  prophet  like  unto  me," 
Avhen  He  said  to  the  Jews:  "If  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  believe 
me;  for  he  wrote  of  me"  (John  v.  46).  And  Peter  preached  to  the 
Jews  after  Christ's  resurrection  that  in  the  person  of  Jesus  the  prophet, 
like  unto  Moses,  had  been  raised  up,  unto  whom  they  should  hearken. 
Men  who  intelhgently  believe  Christ  and  His  apostles  cannot  avoid  be- 
lieving that  the  Law  was  given  by  Moses,  and  that  it  was  divinely  re- 
vealed to  him.  He  who  said  to  the  scribes  who  evaded  that  Law,  who 
explained  away  its  obvious  meaning,  "  Ye  have  made  void  the  Word  of 
God  because  of  your  tradition  "  (Matt.  xv.  6),  would  he  be  less  severe 
now  in  condemning  those  who  have  no  more  reverence  for  that  Law  than 
for  some  old  profane  documents  that  have  been  preserved  to  our  time  ? 
May  we  not  think  of  the  Lord  Jesus  as  now  saying  to  a  perverse  and 
unbeHeving  generation  of  destructive  critics  of  the  Scriptures:  Woe 
unto  you,  critics,  ye  have  made  void  the  Word  of  God  by  your  criti- 
cisms, and  by  them  ye  are  seeking  to  destroy  other  men's  faith  in  that 
Word  ? 

Pittsburg.  Pa.  Dunlop  Moore. 


044  THE  PRESDTTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

and  again,  the  author  rejects  the  idea  of  knowledge  in  favor  of  what  he  calls 
experience.  The  mystic  is  one  who  seeks  the  Absolute  in  ways  other  than 
dialectical.  The  modern  consciousness  has  an  intense  feeling  of  freedom  ; 
this  freedom  is,  at  bottom,  nothing  else  than  disinterestedness,  and,  being 
such,  it  is  essentially  homogeneous  with  the  Absolute.  This  disinterested- 
ness is  an  alienation  of  the  self,  "  a  voluntary  abdication  of  the  me."  In 
this  way  does  the  mystic  overtake  the  Unknowable—it  is  still  the  Unknow- 
able, to  be  sure,  but  it  is  experienced.  Thus  Mysticism  lends  itself  to  the 
postulates  of  Agnosticism,  "  but  it  refuses  to  maintain  an  attitude  of  relig- 
ious respect  to  the  Unknowable  merely  as  Unknowable."  Indeed,  the 
mystic  soul  does  not  experience  the  Absolute  immediately,  but  only  by 
means  of  symbols.  The  mystic  walks  not  by  faith  or  by  sight,  but  by  sym- 
bols. Augustine  could  reach  the  very  limits  of  intellection,  but  his  purely 
metaphysical  genius  was  ill  adapted  to  the  use  of  symbols  and  so  we  hear 

him  exclaim  :"  I  got  as  far  as  the  thinking  force,  which  is  myself 

I  had  a  flashing  gleam  of  you,  O  my  God,  and  then  immediately  sinking 
backwards  I  said, '  Who  can  go  further  ?  Shall  I  seek  visions  ?  Many  have 
tried  them  and  have  found  only  illusions.'  " 

The  perception  of  the  transcendental  is  the  first  step  in  the  mystic  expe- 
rience. Ribot  is  quoted  with  sanction :  "  Clear  consciousness  is  but  a  small 
part  of  total  consciousness."  We  need  the  abandon  of  the  mystic,  "the 
faculty  of  valor;"  we  need  the  naive  consciousness  of  the  savage  in  some 
degree ;  we  need  to  understand  better  Pascal's  meaning  when  he  says,  "  The 
heart  feels  first  principles;"  we  need  the  recognition  of  what  the  author 
calls  the  "  excessivity  "  of  truth;  we  must  remember  that  the  foundations 
of  things  rebel  against  rigid  formulae,  and  that  the  way  to  be  sure  not  to 
know  the  greatest  truths  is  to  be  very  eager  or  to  try  very  hard  to  know 
them. 

These  symbols  are  the  sole  instruments  of  the  mystic  consciousness.  Here 
we  are  led  to  the  verge  of  the  Swedenborgian  doctrine  of  knowledge.  All 
mental  activity  is  by  means  of  symbols.  Science  lives  by  symbols;  "we 
employ  anthropomorphic  substitutes  "  for  the  purely  mathematical  or  scien- 
tific terms  which  ought  to  be  used.  A  fortiori,  the  use  of  symbols  in  phil- 
osophy is  indispensable.  The  e'ldmXa  of  Democritus  is  closely  akin  to  the 
symbolism  of  religion.  Symbols  give  to  consciousness  both  stable  equilib- 
rium and  its  quota  of  representations.  They  give  vivacity,  fixity,  consist- 
ency to  religious  thought.  When  St.  Bonaventure  borrowed  a  symbol  from 
mathematics  and  applied  it  to  the  Eternal,  he  gave  vividness  to  our  concep- 
tion of  the  Divine :  Deus  est  sphaera  intelligibilis,  cujus  centrum  est  ubique 
et  circumferentia  nusquam.  Symbols,  however,  do  not  represent  so  much  as 
suggest.  Scripture  is  largely  the  analytical  translation  of  symbols.  If 
Isaiah  had  been  cogitating  dialectically,  we  should  have  had  a  page  of  phil- 
osophy on  the  nature  of  holiness  instead  of  the  vision  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  his  prophecies.  The  Trinity  is  a  mystic  notion,  a  psychological  symbol, 
for  the  human  mind  could  not  have  conceived  it  dialectically.  Bossuet  is 
here  quoted :  "  A  created  Trinity  which  God  effects  in  our  souls  represents 
to  us  the  Increate  Trinity." 

This  theory  of  knowledge  is  very  far-reaching.  It  is  one  thing  to  say  that 
all  objective  knowledge  is  analogical,  and  quite  another  that  all  knowledge 
is  symbolical.  Spencer  says  we  cannot  know  the  Ding  an  sick.  R^cejac 
agrees  with  this,  only  he  says  we  can  experience  not  the  Ding,  but  symbols 
of  it ;  or,  more  accurately,  he  says  we  experience  the  Ding  by  means  of  the 
symbols.  But  what  of  the  relation  between  the  symbols  and  the  Ding  an 
sich  ?  The  generous  cloak  of  the  mystic  covers  this  gap  and  he  rests  con- 
tent.   The  author  argues  strenuously  for  the  exclusive  subjectivity  of  all 


VII. 
REVIEWS    OF 

RECENT  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE. 


I.— APOLOGETICAL   THEOLOGY. 

Essay  on  the  Bases  of  tue  Mystic  Knowledge.  By  E.  Recejac, 
Doctor  of  Letters,  Translated  by  Sara  Carr  Upton.  New  York: 
Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1899.    8vo,  pp.  xi,  287. 

This  book  will  have  a  warm  welcome  from  those  who  desire  some  sound, 
clear  and  able  statement  of  the  distinguishing  idea  of  enlightened  modern 
Mysticism.  We  may  overlook  the  paradox  when  we  see  the  publishers' 
announcement  of  it  as  "  a  scientific  exposition  of  Mysticism."  The  paradox 
is  in  the  fact  that  Mysticism  is  in  essential  antithesis  to  science ;  accord- 
ingly, to  formulate  scientifically  the  principles  of  Mysticism  would  be,  iijso 
facto,  to  destroy  them.  However,  the  book  is  exceptionally  clear  in  its 
thought,  vigorous  in  its  style,  and  often  brilliant  in  its  striking  insight  and 
expression. 

The  philosophical  basis  of  the  argument  is  partly  Hegelian,  partly  Kant- 
ian. It  reminds  one  of  Bradley's  Appearance  and  Reality  in  its  search  for 
the  Absolute,  and  of  Spencer's  First  Principles  in  its  giving  up  of  that 
search.  It  is,  for  the  most  part,  a  study  in  epistemology,  and  is  worth  notic- 
ing, among  the  many  such,  only  because  it  proposes  its  unique  answer  to  the 
problem.  It  posits  the  inability  of  the  human  knowing  faculty  to  compass 
the  Absolute.  "  The  work  of  knowing — the  effort  to  synthetize  the  world 
and  the  ego — is  forever  recommencing  "  (p.  2).  Of  course,  then,  that  effort 
can  never  advance  to  a  successful  accomplishment.  Metaphysics  is  infirm, 
inadequate ;  the  Reason  in  man  cannot  define  the  illusions  that  infest  the 
penumbra  of  its  legitimate  sphere.  Bradley's  cynical  remark  might  have 
been  quoted  :  "  Metaphysics  is  the  finding  of  bad  reasons  for  what  we  believe 
upon  instinct."* 

This  assumed  inability  of  knowledge  leaves  the  door  wide  open  for  the 
mystic.  By  science,  we  know;  by  reason,  we  think;  by  Mysticism,  we  com- 
prehend. Rejecting  Kant's  comparison  of  Mysticism  to  "  some  vast  ocean, 
the  empire  of  illusion,"  the  author  boldly  declares  that  "  either  Mysticism 
contains  a  negation  of  thought  worse  than  Scepticism  or  it  is  tlie  most 
perfect  activity  of  the  mind  "  (p.  1). 

We  have  not  seen  the  untranslated  edition  of  this  book,  but  as  the  title  is 
given  in  the  English  there  is  an  inconsistency  on  the  title-page,  for,  again 

*  Appearance  and  Reality,  p.  xiv. 


